February 3, 2014

WaPo reports on the 22,000 "appeals" filed to get mistake fixed that "are sitting, untouched, inside a government computer and the "unknown number" of less formal efforts by consumers who call for help and are told there is nothing that can be done yet.

“It is definitely frustrating and not fair,” said Addie Wilson, 27, who lives in Fairmont, W.Va., and earns $22,000 a year working with at-risk families. She said that she is paying $100 a month more than she should for her insurance and that her deductible is $4,000 too high.

When Wilson logged on to HealthCare.gov in late December, she needed coverage right away. Her old insurance was ending, and she was to have gallbladder surgery in January. But the Web site would not calculate the federal subsidy to which she knew she was entitled. Terrified to go without coverage, Wilson phoned a federal call center and took the advice she was given: Pay the full price now and appeal later.

Not only is there no solution now, it's not even a priority. (Here are some things that are top priorities: "an electronic payment system for insurers, the computerized exchange of enrollment information with state Medicaid programs, and the ability to adjust people’s coverage to accommodate new babies and other major changes in life circumstance.")

34 comments:

At this point, it's almost a cliche. But if anyone other than government was running this program and its website/databases, they'd be charged with any number of crimes if not already behind bars awaiting trial.

I was in for a doctors appt right after the launch, making the snarky comment when asked if my insurance had changed, yes I still have my substandard insurance. One of the hospital workers signed up and got hacked. She was pissed. But since she probably voted for it.... No sympathy.

Looking at the way this legislation was written, passed, and implemented, I'm having a hard time believing people are surprised.

Looking at the Democrats, and then on the other side of the aisle, the split within the Republican Party, I'm having a hard time imagining the American people are going to be even mildly contented with their politics for awhile.

Desperate people, the sick, poor and already dependent, along with the true-believers, and a few other monied and political interests are neck deep into this thing.

Ignore what you read here. I have it on good authority (both Garage and Paul Krugman from the NYT) that everything is fine with the ACA Web site and there is no need to say bad thi8ngs about it. The site is FIXED!

It's not all griping and bellyaching on my part. I really do feel bad for those who have already been fed into this meatgrinder to be sacrificed on the altar of the "uninsured problem."

My wife and I escaped this by the skin of our teeth at least for this year. But I did go into the website far enough to do some what ifs on the plans being offered in Kansas City. It wasn't pretty, and looked like nearly a doubling of our 2014 premium to get coverage comparable to what we have now. That would be on top of all the other risks revealed by working through healthcare.gov.

Woe unto those who got sick in January. My brother-in-law was self-insured in December. As of January 1, he had no insurance despite trying hard to navigate the system. A week later he collapsed with what we thought might be a stroke. Fortunately it was stress related and he's ok, but thanks to Obamacare, he had no insurance.

Thanks to Obamacare, this momentary scare is going to be a significant financial hardship on his family.

People like the perception that follows from a promise for a quick fix. Let us pray that the mortal gods will deliver onto us money, sex, and ego gratification. Let us sacrifice to appease their lust for capital and control, and a manageable problem set. Let us ignore the progressive cost paid to enjoy their favor.

Don't worry tm, some liberal hack will be along pretty soon in this thread to: a) call you a liar, b) call your brother-in-law a liar, c) call your brother-in-law stupid not figuring out the exchanges, or d) some combination of the above.

in·dic·a·tive/inˈdikətiv/adjective: indicative1. serving as a sign or indication of something.

Maybe the LIVs can't understand the issues because they don't know the big words needed to comprehend concepts like "this is an example of what the other 22,000 are going through"

"“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten." - Orwell